Bruce Jackson writes in this week’s Artvoice:

The BuffaloPundit blog, anti-casino in the past, came out against the Wendt foundation on July 13. It’s posting for that day was headlined,“Margaret Went Foundation.” Under that was a pretty color picture of a casino at night with “Keeps Joel Rose” in the top left corner and “Up at night” in the bottom right corner. The remainder of the posting was a listing of fundable activities and grant recipients from the Wendt Foundation Web page and an attack on the foundation for its support of the lawsuit. On July 22 the site posted a photograph of Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic under a caption saying, “Here’s what the Butcher of Sarajevo looks like nowadays.” Under the picture was a caption saying, “Rumor has it the Wendt Foundation is paying him $1,000,000 to fight a casino in downtown Buffalo.”

1. Thanks for the plug.

2. I was never anti-casino, per se. I was anti-carving-out-sovereign-exclaves-in-Buffalo-for-gambling-purposes. Even Skretny upheld the sovereign exclave bit. I’ve never subscribed to the moralistic or economic arguments against a casino.

3. My post spelled “Wendt” correctly - Artvoice didn’t. Although “Went” is clever.

4. The Karadzic crack - for the humor-challenged - was about likening Joel Rose’s beard to Karadzic’s hirsute disguise. Not likening CACGEC to Republika Srpska. I realize now that it could have been taken that way, and I’m sorry.

Perhaps the most surprising attack on the foundation was Michael Beebe’s July 20 article in the Buffalo News, which begins innocently enough with a listing of some Wendt grantees: Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra, Shea’s Performing Arts Center in Buffalo, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Darwin Martin House and Graycliff, the Roycroft campus in East Aurora, the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus. The foundation has funded, writes Beebe, “hundreds of social programs through churches, the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Club, the Boy Scouts of America and the United Way. In each of the thousands of Wendt grants over the years, the philosophy has been the same: step in when government or other means of funding are not there, and do it as low-key as possible.”

Then Beebe’s tone changes: “Suddenly, though, the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation finds itself at the center of controversy.”

How, exactly, is the Wendt Foundation in the “center of controversy”? Primarily by being in this article written by Beebe, which is headlined “Wendt in the middle of casino battle: Foundation aids foes with $1.9 million.” This is a newspaper article that defines and creates its own subject, a journalistic tautology.

Who is making the charges occasioning the article? Beebe refers to them only generically: “Talk-show hosts and bloggers have criticized the foundation for the $1.9 million it has spent so far funding the lawsuit against the Seneca Nation of Indians’ Buffalo Creek Casino in Buffalo.”

Talk-show hosts? Which ones? The rational ones or the fruitcakes? The analyzers or the frothers? Since when is criticism by a talk-show host the subject of a long piece by anybody in the news section of the Buffalo News? A dozen of those criticisms are aired on Buffalo talk radio every day and the News pays them no attention at all. Why now? Beebe told me in an email that he’d “heard snippets of Sandy Beach’s show…the day the casino decision came down” and that many of the blog comments he’d seen referred to “the same July 8 Sandy Beach show, in which they said he demonized the opposition.” The Buffalo News is going after the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation because Sandy Beach kvetched about it?

Bloggers? Beebe names none of them. Search the Buffalo blogs and you’ll find a lot of comments on the casino litigation (much of it by the same few people writing the same letters again and again), but hardly any, other than BuffaloPundit, going after the Wendt Foundation.

I’ll note for the record that Jackson doesn’t ever defend the Wendt Foundation’s use of $2 million to fund the casino lawsuit. Apart from confirming that how the foundation spends it money is up to its trustees, he only attacks its critics. I think that speaks for itself, and that the underlying point - that the Wendt Foundation certainly could have found better uses for $2 million - remains quite salient indeed.

More troubling, Jackson poses the suggestion that there is a conspiratorial, concerted effort to “Swiftboat” the Wendt Foundation.

Is all of this—Scott Brown’s WGRZ story (which has no ascriptions), Michael Beebe’s Buffalo News story (which has no ascriptions), the blog posts (nearly all of them under assumed names, many of them using the same language to make the same bogus charges again and again)—mere coincidence or is it a concerted effort to put public pressure on the one significant source of funding open to the casino opponents? Is it an expression of community concern or is it, at least in part, organized and deliberate? Is it swiftboating?

The most workable definition of “swiftboating” I’ve found is on the Urban Dictionary Web site: “A political ploy whereby allegations, falsehoods, exaggerations, or distortions are publicized to discredit a person or entity and have the intended effect that public attention is drawn to the ensuing controversy about the veracity of the allegations and away from some other political embarrassment.”

What a steaming load of horseshit. Bruce Jackson could have easily contacted me via email to ask me whether I had acted in concert with anyone in posting what I did about the Wendt Foundation, but did not. What I do on this site is comment on news events that interest me. I saw the Wendt Foundation story at WGRZ, heard them talk about it on WBEN, and decided to do a post about it because it troubled me, too. Jackson ought to retract his brain-farted supposition or else produce some evidence that I conspired with Channel 2 or WBEN to write something critical of the Wendt Foundation.

Also, in comments to the posted Artvoice piece, Joel Rose doesn’t understand how I know what keeps him up at night.

It’s a joke. It’s a picture of the proposed casino, and I suggest that it keeps you up at night.

I wonder what $2 million could have bought for the poor, underfunded, unconnected, and unprivileged in WNY.

1. Obama was for the holocaust before he was against it. Or some other such idiotic trash that is unbecoming a candidate such as John McCain .

2. Obama would gladly lose a war to win an election. Because he was against the surge. McCain was in favor of the surge. Of course, all of this ignores the simple fact that Obama was against the war from the get-go.

3. McCain says the surge helped bring about the Sunni Anbar Awakening, which has had as much to do - if not exponentially more - with calming the violence in Iraq as the surge itself. The problem is that the surge wasn’t even a glimmer in young Dubya’s eye when the Anbar Awakening began.

4. Obama is like Hitler. Of course, some locals have already said that.

5. Obama will say anything to gain the vote of members of the Israeli press. He mistakenly said the Senate Banking Committee was “his committee” when, in fact, it was that committee (of which he is not a member) that had passed a bill sponsored by Obama. IOW, it was his bill, not his committee.

Of course, because in the past 24 - 48 hours, McCain and his campaign have said several really stupid, offensive things, he did the only thing he could do.

He canceled his single press availability today so he wouldn’t have to answer any questions.

Uses the “n” word.

And (maybe) break the law.

Try this on for size: a radio ad done to the tune of Brooks & Dunn’s “Brand New Man”. Nothing like a little copyright violation to kick off your campaign. Oh, and it just plain old sucks.

Well, we’ve seen the light, and it’s high time, That we send a new man down to Congress this time, Jack Davis will take a stand…and be that brand new man!

Western New York is talkin’ ‘bout those lines they’ve been crossin’ down in Washington They doin’ too much harm…to our jobs and farms!

Jack will clean up the scandals, and he knows how to handle all the challenges that he’ll face, And he’s got the backbone, to vote our soldiers home!

Well, we’ve seen the light, and it’s high time, That we send our own man down to Congress this time, And Jack Davis will take a stand…he’s our next Congressman!

Brand New Man?! I’ll bet Brooks & Dunn’s lawyers would love to have a word with Mr. Davis.

An anonymous blogger at New York City’s Room Eight wrote some not-nice things about a political figure. The original posts are now gone, but Ben Smith outlines them:

Republican Dissident – whose blog appeared on the back pages of this site until he took it down April 15 – wrote as a harsh internal critic of the Bronx Republican Party which, in a quirk of local politics, is closely aligned with the Bronx Democratic Party. He attacked in particular Dawn Sandow, a Republican hire to the Bronx Board of Elections staff of the county party. City investigators, according to the New York Times and the New York Post, have been looking into questions of her residence and her relationship with the chairman of the Bronx Party, Jay Savino.

Republican Dissident also took issue with the district attorney himself, calling for the Bronx Republicans to run their own candidate against Johnson, a Democrat, and calling for him to be removed from an investigation of the Bronx Republican Party. “I would get another prosecutor than Bronx DA Robert Johnson, Bronx County GP always endorses him in every election he runs in,” Republican Dissident wrote.

By Buffalo standards, that’s pretty benign stuff. Nothing that any politician would get all huffy about.

But the Bronx DA issued a grand jury subpoena demanding that Room Eight reveal the name of “Republican Dissident”, as well as the identies of several anonymous commenters. In addition, the subpoena carried a caveat ordering Room Eight to not disclose the existence of the subpoena itself, under penalty of law.

From Ben Smith’s Affidavit:

I believe that there is a substantial possibility that the subpoenas that we have received represent harassment of those who criticize major figures in Bronx politics, and especially in the Republican Party, partly because it seems to be only critics whose identities are sought; partly because the District Attorney has refused to be specific about why he believes that the speakers posts reflect wrongful conduct; and partly because the subpoena was originally issued shortly after Dawn Sandow contacted Gur Tsabar to threaten prosecution because she had been criticized on Room Eight. The District Attorney has refused to be specific about why he believes that the speakers posts reflect wrongful conduct. On their face, it is difficult to conceive of how any of the criticisms posted – regardless of how tasteless – might be relevant to any grand jury investigation of alleged criminal activity.

In other words, there was no explanation given as to the supposed indictable crime the DA was allegedly investigating. It seems as if it was the political speech itself that was the subject matter of the investigation, and the Bronx DA’s office was patently abusing its subpoena power to try and expose, embarass, and punish “Republican Dissident” and commenters on Room Eight. I don’t think I can recall ever seeing such a blatant and outrageous violation of the First Amendment. Read Room Eight’s attorney’s affidavit for more detail about the DA’s position.

Ultimately, the Bronx DA withdrew the subpoenas, but Room Eight threatened to file suit if it wasn’t permitted to disclose the subpoenas’ existence on the site. The DA relented.

Blogging is no longer the unique form of expression it was four or five years ago, but there isn’t a lot of jurisprudence out there on the issue of criminal liability for blog posts and comments. Usually, cases are brought civilly for defamation. It seems like a complete overreach for the Bronx DA to have tried to chill protected political speech in this way, and there should, frankly, be an independent investigation carried out about this. Congratulations to Room Eight for standing on principle and fighting this illegal attempt to silence critics of the powerful.

Bush is at this year’s complete-waste-of-time-o-rama, the G8 summit, where he ended a meeting with a funny quip that might someday find its way onto the Times’ crossword puzzle:

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush, whose second and final term as President ends at the end of the year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world’s richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.

Man, that’s funny. Climate change aside, pollution is something that intelligent people agree is negative. Why is the President behaving like an attention-starved eight year-old at a summit of the eight richest countries?

Not satisfied with just uttering Pythonesque absurdities, Bush also decided that it would be a swell idea to insult Italy and its Prime Minister:

Mr Bush also faced criticism at the summit after Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was described in the White House press pack given to journalists as one of the “most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice”.

Luckily, our long national nightmare comes to an end - regardless of the outcome of this year’s Presidential election - on January 20, 2009. Only 193 days to go!

How can you argue with logic like this?

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God’s Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God’s candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God’s president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

Why do we have to read these stories year after year? These kids are lucky to still be alive while mommy shopped at Target for over 10 minutes. It was 100 degrees plus in that minivan when the kids were let out.

Even if it isn’t 87 degrees out and wickedly humid, who the hell leaves four kids, the oldest being five years old, in a car otherwise unattended?

In other states, it’s a crime. In New York, it’s not. It should be. When a kid is injured or killed from being left alone in a sweltering car by a parent, that is completely preventable, and should be punished.

The cops love to run fire-and-brimstone PSAs about drunk driving and seatbelt usage. How about a PSA blitz every May and June to remind parents not to leave their kids in cars unattended?

A cross burning? In Buffalo?

Donald R. Napierala, 40, was charged with committing a hate crime in the cross burning on the couple’s South Park Avenue lawn, which is about two blocks away from his home on Macamley Street.

Cross burning is largely considered a symbol of the Ku Klux Klan and extremist hate groups.

Authorities said Napierala was seeking revenge against Echevarria, who allegedly punched him in his right eye during a fist fight at an Independence Day party. But authorities also said Napierala is a white supremacist who hated Echevarria because he is Hispanic, and that Napierala displayed racial bigotry when igniting the cross.

“It’s a hate crime because it’s a racial issue,” said Lt. Sal Colangelo, head of the city’s Fire Marshal’s Office. “As for cross burning, it’s totally ridiculous. This is not the post-Civil War times.”

Napierala has been charged with misdemeanor arson, misdemeanor criminal mischief, and felony reckless endangerment.

Fistfights are dumb enough, but cross-burning is a special kind of dumb.

When Republicans cry with indignation at mistreatment of John McCain, let us not forget 2004. Back then, the GOP brought new meaning to “honoring service” of a veteran and political civility. Kerry received three Purple Hearts serving in combat in Vietnam. That’s three more than Bush, Rove, and Cheney combined. This is how, in 2004, Bush’s supporters honored his service:

So, the civility bar has been set remarkably low, and so far the only thing that’s been questioned is whether getting shot down over Hanoi is a qualification for the Presidency. When Wes Clark made that observation, Bob Dole awoke from Bob Dole’s slumber. Bob Dole said this:

“The attack by General Wesley Clark on Senator John McCain’s war record and qualifications for the presidency is beyond comprehension. Clark’s absurd remarks signal further erosion in our nation’s political discourse. He should have stayed in bed Sunday morning.

It’s unfortunate that a former General who ran for the presidency on his own war record thinks it appropriate to attack a distinguished veteran and former prisoner-of-war in this way. Senator McCain’s entire life has been devoted to public service. His achievement and experience constitute unparalleled qualification for America’s highest office.”

This is what Bob Dole said in 2004 about John Kerry’s service:

And last week, former Sen. Bob Dole, the party’s 1996 presidential nominee, brought more attention to the allegations when he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “With three Purple Hearts, he never bled that I know of. And they’re all superficial wounds.”

In other words, Senator Dole, the erosion of our political discourse was helped along by the likes of you.

I happen to think that there is no set of qualifications for the Presidency. If there were, we could just us a headhunter and solicit resumes. So the question itself is a dumb one.

But gasps of righteous indignation from the crowd that wore purple-heart laden Band-Aids ring very hollow indeed.

HT The Humanist.

Republicans really can’t figure out whether Obama is an elitist country clubber or a Jihadist-in-waiting who American, just barely. But this, I think, is the winningest strategy out of all of them and I urge Republicans to adopt this:

Norquist dropped by The Times’ Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama’s liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee “John Kerry with a tan.”

Why I detest cable news and Rush Limbaugh clones:

Pat Buchanan (R-Nuremburg) wrote a book that basically excoriates Britain and the US for getting involved in that WWII thing.

Christopher Hitchens pens a beautifully written counterpoint/rebuke of Buchanan’s thesis here.

Hitch summarizes the arguments Buchanan makes:

That Germany was faced with encirclement and injustice in both 1914 and 1939.

Britain in both years ought to have stayed out of quarrels on the European mainland.

That Winston Churchill was the principal British warmonger on both occasions.

The United States was needlessly dragged into war on both occasions.

That the principal beneficiaries of this were Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

That the Holocaust of European Jewry was as much the consequence of an avoidable war as it was of Nazi racism.

I love this passage:

In his view, after all, Germany had been terribly wronged by Versailles and it would have been correct to redraw the frontiers in Germany’s favor and soothe its hurt feelings (which is what the word “appeasement” originally meant). Meanwhile we should have encouraged Hitler’s hostility to Bolshevism and discreetly rearmed in case he should also need to be contained. This might perhaps have worked if Germany had been governed by a right-wing nationalist party that had won a democratic vote. However, in point of fact Germany was governed by an ultra-rightist, homicidal, paranoid maniac who had begun by demolishing democracy in Germany itself, who believed that his fellow countrymen were a superior race and who attributed all the evils in the world to a Jewish conspiracy. It is possible to read whole chapters of Buchanan’s book without having to bear these salient points in mind. (I should say that I intend this observation as a criticism.) As with his discussion of pre-1914 Germany, he commits important sins of omission that can only be the outcome of an ideological bias. Barely mentioned except in passing is the Spanish Civil War, for example, where for three whole years between 1936 and 1939 Germany and Italy lent troops and weapons in a Fascist invasion of a sovereign European nation that had never threatened or “encircled” them in any way. Buchanan’s own political past includes overt sympathy with General Franco, which makes this skating-over even less forgivable than it might otherwise be.

Read the whole thing.

Also, see video of Hitchens talking about it here and here, and Buchanan responds here.

Terrorist fist jabs everywhere! Oh NOES!

Someone driving Marshawn Lynch’s 2008 Porsche Cayenne struck a 27-year old Ontario woman early Saturday morning, and didn’t stop. The only question now is - who was behind the wheel? Presumably, unless there’s a police report of that vehicle being stolen, its owner knows who was driving. In order to get Mr. Lynch to give up that info, the police are holding the Cayenne hostage.

Either way, Lynch is lucky that woman only has some bruises and minor injuries.

When Hillary Clinton began her quest for the Presidency, she was despised by a good half of the electorate-at-large.

Now? In late May 2008? She’s despised by a good half of the Democratic Party, too. Not because she’s a woman. Not because she’s a Clinton. Not because she’s from New York. Not because she’s opinionated and strong.

She’s despised because she’s a sore loser, and she’s playing the feminist victim card in a way that cheapens both words.

Any suggestion that her loss in the primaries has to do with sexism or unfair media treatment is patently false, and truly pathetic. If that’s the message she wants to send to her supporters, so be it. She lost fair and square partly because of the mismanagement of her own campaign. I hope all of this nonsense is somehow worth it for her.

Like the NY Lottery - hey, you never know.

This has to be one of the dumbest things said on the campaign trail this year. The fact that it was said by the candidate who’s got the experience - the one who’s been fully vetted - the one who’s ready to lead on day one, makes it all the stupider.

Her apology:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” the former first lady said.

“Sorry if it was offensive” does-not-equal “sorry I said something offensive”.

Of all the things in the whole world she could have brought up as an excuse for staying in a race she’s already lost, arguing that RFK wasn’t shot and killed until June is probably the last one on the list. It is offensive not only because dredging up RFK’s assassination is in poor taste this week, with news of Teddy Kennedy’s illness. It is offensive because bringing up the specter of assassination is beyond the pale - well beyond anything normal people would discuss as part of a primary campaign. It’s like taking being at a romantic dinner at Olivers, pulling your pants down, hopping up on the table, squatting, and taking a shit right there in the middle of the table.

Seriously, Mrs. Clinton, the race is over for you. Drop out now while you still have a political career.

UPDATE: Even the argument itself is fallacious, regardless of its offensiveness. In 1992, the New York Times noted that, by March 20th, Paul Tsongas was running out of money and pulled out of the race. He said,

the alternative was to play the role of spoiler.” ‘That Is Not Worthy’…”That is not what I’m about,” he continued. “That is not worthy. I did not survive my ordeals in order to be the agent of the re-election of George Bush.”

In the meantime, the (Bill) Clinton campaign argued that the mathematics made him the inevitable nominee:

Mr. Clinton is already close to the halfway mark in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and has a 7-to-1 edge over Mr. Brown, who is running a maverick, anti-establishment campaign. Many Democrats said that barring an unexpected collapse by Mr. Clinton’s campaign, it is difficult to see how Mr. Brown can overtake the Governor.

“It certainly brings it much closer to a conclusion,” said Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman. “You could argue that it’s theoretically possible for Jerry Brown to mount a come-from-behind challenge, but the math and the reality of Bill Clinton’s momentum certainly work against him.”

And note that in 1992, the New Hampshire primary took place during the second half of February - not in January.

As Marc Ambinder argues,

For those who contend that Clinton was referring to competitive contests or example, why didn’t she bring up Ted Kennedy in 1980? Or Gary Hart in 1984? I think she was pointing to primary races where the eventual nominee was unknown at this point in the cycle…. But 1984 would apply more, her husband was the de-facto nominee at this point, and the compressed calender really renders such comparisons null and void.

Even if her point is legitimate, surely she is aware of the sensitivity of the subject.

Obama has done exactly the right thing over the last week or so - pretend Clinton doesn’t exist. Yes, his campaign issued a statement calling what Clinton said, “unfortunate” and said it “has no place in this campaign.” Other than that, Obama has been looking more presidential than either McCain or Clinton this past week, easily morphing from defense to offense whenever McCain attacks him, and by mounting a general election campaign.

Why does James Baker hate America?

UPDATE: Apparently, General Petraeus is also an America-hating, naive, inexperienced appeaser! CHAMBERLAIN!!@@##

I have to hand it to Matthews for giving this imbecile a good smack, though.

The amazing expansion and renovation that the Pearl Street Grill & Brewery in downtown Buffalo has undertaken in recent years has been incredible. From upstairs expansion, the new outdoor decks and patios, its commitment to local businesses and the local economy, to the fact that it employs 111 people and contributes to the livability of this city, it is a business that deserves the benefit of the doubt always.

That’s why this story in today’s Buffalo News incensed me so.

The Preservation Board of the City of Buffalo is unhappy with Pearl Street’s recent changes, most recently including a corner sign depicting its new mascot, “Lake Effect Man”. Branding is an important component to a business like Pearl Street with ambitions such as the ones described in the article - to be the largest selling brewpub in the world.

“[Going before] the Preservation Board has been a terrible experience,” Ketry said. “They don’t respect anything that has to do with the private sector. They have these pie-in-the-sky notions and don’t get what it takes to create growth in a business environment.”

But the board considered Ketry’s proposals excessive and out of line for a street known for its variety of historic buildings. They include the recently restored Webb Lofts two doors down and the terra-cotta Guaranty Building at Pearl and Church streets.

“Should an 1840s building be a spectacle? Not in a historic district,” said Russell Pawlak, a board member. “It diminishes the beauty of the building. It’s death by a thousand cuts.”

“They have far and away exceeded what we thought would be appropriate for that building,” said John Laping, board chairman.

Laping said the Common Council should not have overruled the Preservation Board without seeking its advice.

Ellicott Council Member Brian Davis, who has come to Ketry’s aid, said he thought Pearl Street’s contribution to the local economy overrode other considerations.

“Buffalo can’t be afraid to take steps that are going to put more attention on the city in a positive way. I thought [the changes] would help bring more people to downtown,” Davis said.

The Council member said he considered Ketry’s role in making the business a success and the 111 people in his employ. None of the changes, he added, was necessarily permanent.

“Everything he has added to the building can be removed. It’s not permanent in nature; it’s nuts and bolts,” Davis said.

That quaint brick 1840s building was built to house a commercial entity. The fact that it still houses a viable commercial entity in 2008 is astonishing. Especially in this city. The changes that Pearl Street is making to the facade and structure in order to maintain and grow its business do not detract from the history of that building, or from its beauty. It’s not as if Pearl Street covered the brick with vinyl. It’s not as if Pearl Street ripped the whole thing down to build some sort of Dryvit-laden Panera Bread lookalike.

Let Pearl Street thrive.

(Photo by the Buffalo News’ Harry Scull)

The price of just about everything has shot up like crazy, and Albany thinks you deserve relief.

Are they proposing lowering taxes and fees across the board? Are they going to spend less to make up the difference? Is there any chance that New York politicians might adopt just a smidgen of their constituents’ frugality in the face of the ever-higher cost of living?

No.

But here’s a C-note, kid. Now scram.